Downloads

Recent research (published for the first time in this article) reveals that many forecasting methods fail to add any value at all - with up to 50% of forecasts failing to beat even a simple "naive" forecast, where last period's actual becomes the forecast for the next period.

A comparative analysis of 24 different forecasting methods, reveals just how poorly they perform against a simple naïve forecast. The implication is that investing in smarter techniques/software alone does not guarantee success; rigorous measurement at a granular level (e.g. by ForecastQT™) is essential to accelerate the "time to value" from these investments. [First published in Foresight magazine, Winter 2014]

A new approach to measuring forecasting performance. Allowing for ‘forecastability’ and defining the practical limits of forecast improvement allows forecast quality to be measured and compared objectively and the scope for improvement to be quantified. These findings will help practitioners to manage and improve their forecast processes with greater ease and impact. [First published in Summer 2013]

Forecasters need a broader perspective on their craft and its corporate role if they want to make the kind of contribution companies now demand, as they struggle with increasing levels of volatility. [First published in Foresight magazine]

While forecasting is not an exact science, most business forecasts fall well short of any acceptable level of quality. Learn about five important, but often overlooked techniques to help you improve forecasts.